Suzanne Tremblay

[Starmania, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the name of all Quebecers and Canadians, I would like to congratulate Mr. Luc Plamondon and all those who made possible the remarkable success of Starmania , the rock musical.

At the ninth Victoires de la Musique award ceremony yesterday in Paris, the third Paris version of Starmania received the Victoire award for the best musical of the year. Most performers in that rock musical are Quebecers. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to thank them most sincerely, in everybody's name, for the honour they bring us and for their contribution to the promotion of French language song.

This recognition by the large French public is reason enough to be proud of our artists and to increase our support of all cultural industries which contribute to Quebec's uniqueness.

[Multiculturalism, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the presentation of the fifth annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism to address this important topic.

We are also anxious to hear the results of the round table of senior officials, which will report shortly to the secretary of state on new ways to demonstrate the government's leadership in bringing about meaningful changes in Canada. However, I would like to draw attention to the subtext of the speech by the secretary of state, which implies there is no difference them and us, no difference between immigrants and the citizens of this country, the founding citizens.

How can the government claim to promote multiculturalism while stating there is no difference between the members of cultural minorities and the members of our two majorities in this country, the franco-Quebecois and anglo-Canadians?

The secretary of state appears to use the words multiculturalism and assimilation interchangeably.

Let us look at the facts. In most Canadian provinces, Amerindian and cultural minorities of every description are assimilating in great numbers. In Quebec, however, aboriginal nations maintain their language and culture to a greater extent, and we can even speak of a renewed interest in those languages. Among Quebec's cultural minorities, mainly in Montreal, we see greater retention of their mother tongue by children of immigrants-the second and third generation.

I think the secretary of state was referring to the integration of immigrants in the vast Canadian anglophone majority to which she belongs. Does the secretary of state realize what is happening in her own province? This is a denial of Quebec's distinct identity. Her department's mandate is to encourage a sense of Canadian cultural identity based on the main characteristics of Canada, which are bilingualism and multiculturalism. it is clear that the federal government's policies are more inclined to embrace the perspective of a hypothetical pan-Canadian cultural identity.

Until Quebec has acquired full political sovereignty, we will defend Quebec's right to the recognition of its cultural identity.

When the secretary of state says that diversity is the most obvious characteristic of Canada, because our ancestors came here from all over the world, we must not and cannot ignore the fact that today, and in fact for the past 350 years, there has not been one Canadian reality but three: one francophone, one anglophone and one Amerindian or aboriginal, the reality of the aboriginal First Nations.

This is not a situation unique to Quebec. It is the same for Acadians and the French speaking communities of the rest of Canada.

Waves of immigrants settled in Quebec, coming first from Great Britain, Ireland and Mediterranean and slavic countries, then more recently from Asia, Africa, Latin America and West Indies. Quebecers do not make a distinction. They are all true Quebecers.

For Quebec, the diversity principle must revolve around the French nature of our culture embodied in all our institutions and on which is based Quebec distinctiveness. The contribution of immigrants to Quebec and Canada is enormous, culturally as well as socially and economically. The diversity of our population must allow for differences while encouraging newcomers to blend into the social fabric.

To that end, the authorities having jurisdiction, that is to say Quebec and the other provinces, must have the tools necessary to facilitate this blending in, whether it be job training or French language education.

It is important to establish clearly that a sovereign Quebec has every intention to abide by the treaties and conventions which protect minorities. We will participate fully in the discussions that, at the international level, will focus on the tools developed to better protect minorities.

The multiculturalism policy of the Canadian government has a lot in common with that of Canadian diplomacy. It irons out the reality and distinctiveness of Quebec.

A federation has to give a certain image of itself, whether abroad or to newcomers. In this regard, it appears that our federation hides behind stereotypes the true identity of one part, because it cannot integrate its distinctiveness.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that the red book is a thing of the past. Perhaps we will hear no more about it then. Does the minister still claim to be a friend of the CBC family, while preparing to implement the cuts decreed by the previous government, cuts which the Liberal Party strongly condemned when it was in opposition?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. As was pointed out last evening on the CBC news, in its red book the Liberal Party of Canada accused the previous government of deliberately undermining our institutions and argued that funding cuts to the CBC illustrated the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural development.

The minister undoubtedly recognizes this excerpt from the red book. Can he tell us whether he agrees with the position taken by his party?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced yesterday and again today, he is placing this House in front of a fait accompli with respect to the appointment of a new President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He has refused to subject this appointment to a parliamentary committee for approval in a free, binding vote, as the previous government had promised.

Yesterday, I asked the minister to explain to the House why this policy was changed and why candidates for the position of president and chief executive officer of the CBC had to send their resumés to the Prime Minister's Office, to the official in charge of appointments, who is a long-standing Liberal Party activist.

The minister told us that the policy had changed because the government had changed and went on to refer me to page 454 of Hansard . That was an obvious statement if there ever was one. And the reason I am rising again on this question this evening is that the minister's answer was totally unacceptable as it did not address my question.

I did refer to Hansard as the hon. minister had so kindly suggested and here is what I found, and I quote: ``The government will announce shortly the appointment of the new president of the CBC''.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question. The previous government had instituted an appointment process designed to be non-partisan, in which nominations were to be sent to recruitment committees. Since coming into office October 25, the new government has been telling us that they were following in the tracks of the previous government. Let me tell you that they have gone off the track and that openness has been thrown into the ditch.

Today, I asked the minister again why his government had made that change? To no avail.

Why did the minister not submit the appointment to the parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage?

Why does the minister refuse to table before that committee, meeting in camera, the list of candidates who have turned down the job as reported in La Presse today.

Why does the minister refuse to be more transparent about political appointments when his Prime Minister is boasting left and right that he wants to restore the confidence of the people of Canada and Quebec in their public corporations and federal institutions?

Is it only because the minister is not an expert on parliamentary procedure, as he said himself?

At the first opportunity the government has to make good on a promise, namely to run the country with transparency, it has candidacies sent to the Prime Minister's Office instead of an impartial recruitment committee.

I think that the people of Quebec and Canada are entitled to see for themselves that the people running their public corporations are chosen on the basis of objective criteria.

Need I remind you that we are entitled to question the government's openness on this? Indeed, we have no grounds to believe that the credibility of the process of appointment to management positions in federal institutions has been improved by the recent change of government.

How many candidates refused the position in the CBC? Why did the Prime Minister break with tradition and prefer to choose a candidate from inside instead of from outside the organization? The minister had many meetings with the candidate while he was acting president of the Corporation since November. Did the minister discuss his candidacy during those meetings? Did the minister support the candidacy? Did he personally recommend it to the appointments director? Who really made the decision? The minister, Mrs. Collenette or the Prime Minister on the advice of his special adviser, the former president of the CBC?

All these questions are unanswered. Could the minister answer them directly tonight, without referring me to Hansard this time?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to ensure greater transparency, the minister might consider tabling this list to the committee, in camera.

I have a supplementary question. Since the minister refused to consult the committee, will he at least tell this House what were the true criteria used for the appointment of the new President?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Yesterday, the minister admitted that the government would put parliamentarians before a fait accompli regarding the appointment of the new CBC President, thus refusing to subject this appointment to the approval of the House, and that is now a done thing.

Since the government decided to impose its own choice, will the minister undertake to give members of the parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage the list of candidates who submitted their resume to Mrs. Collenette, the wife of the Minister of National Defence?

[Policy On Appointments, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, besides publishing the required qualifications and saying that the appointment of the president of the CBC will be announced shortly, can the minister reassure the House that the appointment of the next president of the CBC will be subject to a parliamentary committee for approval in a free, binding vote, as the previous government promised?

[Policy On Appointments, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Prime Minister has said many times that he wants to restore integrity in federal institutions. In this regard, the previous government had instituted a new policy for appointments to management positions in public agencies, in particular by giving parliamentary committees the right to approve appointments in a free, binding vote.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain to this House why this policy has been changed and why candidates for the position of President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had to send their résumés to the Prime Minister's Office, to the official in charge of appointments, who is a long-standing Liberal Party activist and wife of the defence minister?

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the arts and culture industry plays an important role in the Canadian and Quebec economy. According to a UNESCO study, a $1 billion investment in this sector generates several billions of dollars in economic activity over two years.

The vitality of this sector depends on its craftsmen and women. Through their work, their imagination, their passion, these people enable producers and cultural industries to provide us with a range of cultural products: books, sound recordings, radio, television, films, videos, paintings, plays, dance and other forms of expression that nourish and define us.

The film and television association is right in reminding us: "With the exception of the United States, no western country has succeeded since World War II in developing strong national cultural industries without active, growing and multiform state support. Despite the efforts made, maintaining strong national cultures and identities has become more difficult than ever with the globalization of markets increasingly dominated by the big transnational conglomerates".

The association goes on to say: "Unless they react with vigour and imagination, national states may be powerless to stop the gradual disintegration of their cultures and identities to be replaced by a single transnational culture and be forced to witness the slow disappearance of what made human cultures so precious: their diversity. It is therefore essential that the government pay particular attention to this sector in preparing its next budget".

Let us look at some figures on the arts and culture industry to realize how much they contribute to the Canadian and Quebec economy. In 1990-91, this industry injected into the economy a total of $22 billion or 3.7 per cent of the GDP. The Canada Council made the following statement: "Recent comparisons with other industries show that arts and culture contribute more to the GDP than agriculture, mining and forestry".

The arts and culture industry helps to create 500,000 direct and indirect jobs. Employment in this sector has gone up by a phenomenal 122 per cent since 1971, while the average growth rate in other sectors of the economy over the same period was 58 per cent. This means that in 20 years employment in the arts and culture industry rose from 1.8 to 2.5 per cent of the Canadian workforce. The federal Treasury alone collects some $650 million in annual taxes from cultural industries.

Finally, creating one job in the cultural sector costs about $20,000 compared with $100,000 for light industry and $200,000 for heavy industry.

However, this information can hide the fact that most of the artists, creators and craftsmen active in the arts and culture industry live in poverty. In 1986-87, Jean-Guy Lacroix surveyed 6,170 artists and creators in the field of music, theatre, dance and writing and found that the vast majority were experiencing considerable economic hardship. Their average income was $8,170. Seventy-eight per cent of them earned less than $10,000, 15.3 per cent lived above the poverty line, and only 2.8 per cent had incomes above $50,000.

Moreover, the employment status of artists and creators is precarious as they mostly work on a part-time or contractual basis, which means that they constantly face an uncertain future, since their self-employed status makes them ineligible for unemployment insurance.

Cultural and artistic industries have two main characteristics. They are risk sectors and are vulnerable to imports, especially imports from the United States.

Since these industries are chronically underfunded, if projects are to get off the ground, regardless of the field, the producer needs to put together the necessary funding. Succeeding in this endeavour is quite a feat and as everyone knows, many worthwhile projects never see the light of day for lack of funding.

This vulnerability to artistic and cultural imports is confirmed by the $4.4 billion trade deficit recorded in 1991. It should be noted that this is a trend. In fact, the trade deficit recorded by artistic and cultural industries is growing every year. Since 1988, it has increased by 12 per cent.

Yet, consumers are asking for more. In 1991, the people of Canada and Quebec spent $35 billion on cultural products. The Canada Council reports that, since 1982, while overall consumer spending has increased by 7 per cent, the increase in the area of arts and culture has been 9 per cent. This means that more and more Canadian and Quebec products must be supplied to meet consumer demand and eliminate the deficit in the trade balance for that area. I must remind the hon. members that it costs less to create employment in that sector than in any other economic sector, hence the importance of investing in cultural industries.

The previous government made cuts in the cultural and communications industry without thinking about the long-term effects of its action. They are even suspected by some of having tried to challenge the principle of government support to the cultural industry.

Between 1984 and 1992, while overall government expenditures increased by 41.9 per cent, the GDP rose by 52.7 per cent and inflation climbed 36.6 per cent, the portion of the federal budget allocated to culture increased by only 3.7 per cent. This apparent increase actually translated into a 24.2 per cent decrease in constant dollars. By the way, most of the cuts affected the CBC.

Finally, further cuts are planned, based on the 1993 budget, at the rate of 10, 10, 15, 20 and 20 per cent for the five years remaining.

This is clearly the work of a short-sighted government, especially when we know that the government recovers almost every penny invested in that industry.

Granted, the government has very little financial flexibility. Where then can we find the necessary funding for the cultural industry in Quebec and Canada?

For its part, Quebec has long demanded respect for its exclusive jurisdiction over culture. In the field of culture, Quebec can no longer afford having two departments, two councils for the arts and literature, three film development agencies that provide grants and whose officials do the same work and even contradict one another at times.

What the federal government is now doing is outside any sub-agreement between Canada and Quebec. The agreement on cultural facilities expired in March 1991. Without consulting the Government of Quebec, Ottawa is giving grants left and right for cultural facilities projects, while leaving it to Quebec to pay their operating expenses.

However, the Harpin Report submitted to Quebec's Minister of Cultural Affairs is clear on this point. It said: "We can conclude that the two levels of government clearly overlap in the area of program structures, clients served and even legislative and fiscal measures. We can even say that duplication leads to one-upmanship".

So one of the first ways to free up funds is to end the overlap and duplication, to give Quebec back its jurisdiction over culture and to include the funding that goes with it.

In the meantime, we want the government to cancel its decision to reduce funding for the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada by 10 per cent and also to cancel the $250 million in cuts planned for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Finally, if through some misfortune, the measures implemented by the previous government were to be maintained, the Official Opposition would ask for the development of a program especially geared to members of cultural industries. These people who, so far, have been living mainly off their passion, must not be the victims of the clear-cutting measures taken by the government; the latter must provide them with the means to overcome the crisis which it will impose upon them.

Performers make us dream; they make us cry; they make us laugh. Creators constantly surprise us and stimulate our imagination. I ask the government to not let them down. Nobody can afford that.

For all these reasons, the Minister of Canadian Heritage must not be content with maintaining the status quo. He must take the initiative and explain to his colleague the Minister of Finance that artistic and cultural industries need active, growing and multifaceted support from the government, because the decisions made today will shape tomorrow's society and will determine, to a large extent, our collective future.